BS: Free range kids?

Subject: BS: Free range kids?
From: Bettynh
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 12:22 PM

This disturbs me:


"PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. - UPDATE: Nicole Gainey says she was told by a Florida Department of Children and Families official to expect the case to be dropped.

-----------------------------

A mother faces a charge of child neglect after she allowed her son to go to a local park alone. She says he's old enough but Port St. Lucie Police disagree. Now she's fighting back.

"I'm totally dumbfounded by this whole situation," said the mother, Nicole Gainey.

It began last Saturday afternoon when Gainey gave her son Dominic permission to walk from their house to Sportsman's Park .

"Honestly didn't think I was doing anything wrong," says Gainey, "I was letting him go play.

It's a half mile from their Port St. Lucie home. Dominic says it only takes him about 10 to 15 minutes to get there. During the walk, the 7-year-old passed a public pool. Someone there asked him where his mom was.

"They asked me a couple questions and I got scared so I ran off to the park and they called the cops," says Dominic Guerrisi.

Dominic was playing at the park when an officer pulled up.

"They said 'where does your mom live,' " says Dominic.

Police took him home. That's when his mom was arrested and charged with child neglect. Gainey says she was shocked.

"My own bondsman said my parents would have been in jail every day," says Gainey who paid nearly $4,000 to bond out.

The officer wrote in the report that Dominic was unsupervised at the park and that "numerous sex offenders reside in the vicinity."

"He just basically kept going over that there's pedophiles and this and that and basically the park wasn't safe and he shouldn't be there alone," says Gainey.

She believes Dominic is mature enough to go to the park alone during the day. Gainey adds her son always has a cell phone which she calls to check on him.

"That I'm here and safe," says Dominic.

Gainey plans to fight the felony charge. But after this she won't let Dominic go to the park alone. She's afraid she'll be arrested again.

The St. Lucie County State's Attorney's office says there is no law that specifies how old a child has to be before he or she can go somewhere unsupervised. It's done on a case-by-case basis.

Copyright 2014 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. "


Maybe it's because I have twins, maybe because I was raised in the '50's, I let my kids roam the neighborhood at an early age. Actually, we had the largest yard in the neighborhood, so the kids came to us when they were really young. I still think of the patch of woods in the back of the back yard as "the castle."

When we first went to the National Storytelling Festival (they were 6 or 7) it seemed natural to let them wend through the crowd of folding chairs and sit on the ground at the very front of the stage. I think I remember other kids doing that, too, but it was a long time ago (they just turned 32). The last time I went to the festival, I noticed that there was no kid crowd in front. I wondered then if my kids had led the charge on the stage. Now I'm wondering if today's culture is denying even this small freedom to kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 12:40 PM

If the cops know there are pedophiles and other undesirables in the neighborhood why aren't they watching them? In most states they are required to register.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: meself
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 12:41 PM

A cellphone?! You mean, she let him walk to the park alone without packin' a pistol?? Throw the book at her!

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Bettynh
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 12:59 PM

Sex offender is a huge category that includes many offenses which pose no danger to a 7 year old boy. I'd personally worry about that pool (which he sensibly bypassed) and traffic (which danger is entirely random anyway).

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Mr Red
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 12:59 PM

Times are different, in my youth a car was a rare luxury so people lived near their work and rarely moved house or job, and everyone knew everyone. Everyone was watching. Perverts were especially noticeable, not that anyone told me who they were.

It ain't like that nowadays, least ways not in UK towns. Maybe in rural areas a bit.

The "times" is for self and mobility. Freedom has a cost. This is one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Bettynh
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 01:29 PM

" Freedom has a cost. This is one of them."

The cost seems clear to me here - a woman's life interrupted, a woman and child frightenewd by the police, whatever the bondsman charged. I don't see any freedom that was enhanced. If the cops are rational (I don't expect to see this in Florida, but would hope it could happen here in NH), they'd issue an apology and promise to re-educate the officer in the law and reasonable reaction to the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Bettynh
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 02:19 PM

Anyway, I'd rather see stories in this thread. Did you ever allow your kids to do anything that would set these cops on you? Would you do the same again?

A story;

I took the boys to South America to see a solar eclipse - a true adventure, although pretty tame since we travelled with a group from Boston's Museum of Science. After the eclipse, we took a side-trip to Macchu Picchu. By then, I was pretty tired, but the boys were still full of energy (they were 12). I sent them off on a hike into well-worn but unmarked trail with a man I'd known for barely a week. This was in a direction opposite from the traditional hike up the mountain that's directly visible from the main ruin. They got lost, ended up in someone's back yard, and had a good look at Inca hydraulic engineering in still-working condition. They found their way back to the ruin in time for the bus down the mountain.

Now the bus travels along a very steep road with many switchbacks. One of the entertaining features of the ride down is watching the local urchins waving, only to see them again at the next switchback, laughing and waving again and again. On our last trip down the mountain, I let my kids make that run straight down, laughing and waving at each switchback. They had a wonderful time.

Was I crazy? Was I criminal? I'm willing to admit these things were perhaps a bit crazy, but my kids have memories of Macchu Picchu that can't be reproduced.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 02:24 PM

Very odd. Half a mile should not be a big deal for a seven year old to walk.
I note that there is no law about the age a child should be if out unsupervised. So it's entirely at the discretion of the officer at the time. Seems on that basis no parent could feel secure in allowing a child of any age to do any thing alone, in for fear of being accused of being neglectful.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 03:09 PM

I was walking alone to school at that age which was about half a mile.

I can't remember that far back very well but would certainly have been playing unsupervised in our local park at 8.

By 10 I was making short bus journeys alone and riding my bike over q

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 03:09 PM

"...paid nearly $4,000 to bond out."

Don't they mean posted bond of $4,000? That's a different story.

"Half a mile should not be a big deal for a seven year old to walk."

Please, CS. what if the half-mile crosses busy highways or goes through dangerous neighborhoods or crosses railroad tracks?

People, I'm beginning to see too many stories like this, and I ask myself, "What are they not telling us?"

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 03:11 PM

Don't know what happened there.

By 10 riding my bike over quite a large area, bounded only by major roads.

By 11 commuting to and from school alone with a change of buses in the town centre.

By 13 travelling all over London with a Red Rover ticket.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 09:06 PM

Heck, growing up in a small city I, my brothers, our friends and the neighborhood kids went almost everywhere (within, say, a six block radius). We played in the park, we threw rocks at each other, played in the old dumps around the 'hood, in the old brickyard -- and if we did anything "untoward" our parents know about it before we got home. If we were hurt someone around had a band-aid. When we did something good -- as when my brother pulled another kid out of a pond and an adult did artificial respiration -- we were praised (slightly, so we wouldn't get too many ideas about our own importance).

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 10:48 PM

Age seven, I would have been in grade 2, and walking about a mile from our house to school.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Janie
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 11:36 PM

I think it is more complicated than comments here so far suggest. This is not the 1950's. I was 7 years old in 1958, living in a semi-rural community in West Virginia, with virtually 0 crime rate. At 7 years old I would not have been allowed to roam 1/2 mile away from home, alone, even in that semi-rural area. I would have been allowed to walk to a friend's house from that distance, along a rural residential road with little traffic, with the parent at the receiving end knowing I was coming and anticipating when to expect me.

Otherwise, my sisters and I, and all of our neighborhood friends, were expected to stay 1. within shouting distance of home when at 'free play' and 2. within that range, were somewhere that any parent or neighbor, who know all of us, could semi keep an eye out for us, and intervene or get there quickly if need be, for any reason. The concern was not about danger from adult human predators. It was recognition of the need for some measure of protective supervision in terms of that early stage of development.


I agree that child neglect charges are over the top, based on the little I know (and that is very little) about this instance. In my opinion, any 7 year old needs to at least be within shouting distance and always needs to have some one who clearly understands and accepts responsibility for both shouting and for being the ear responsible to hear the shouts of that particular 7 year old. Maybe I'm old fashioned. I know I'm not paranoid.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: LadyJean
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 12:15 AM

My parents both survived siblings and were, as a result, somewhat overprotective. (I never had a bicycle. Dad though they were dangerous.)

When I was 12, Mom read a story about a girl who was raped and murdered by someone who knew she walked to and from school the same way every day. Mom told me about it, then told me to vary my route to and from school every day, so it wouldn't happen to me.

Oh, my dad, who wouldn't let me have a bike, drove an MG midget. The thing was a rolling deth trap, with no seatbelts, nothing to stop it rolling over, and a tiny bench in the back as a third seat. I rode to New Jersey and back in that thing when I was 18 months old. Not to mention any number of trips to the zoo, Girl Scout meetings, rides to school etc. Dad never thought he was putting me at risk.

Danger is in the eye of the beholder.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 01:50 AM

I was born in Detroit, and lived there until I was nine years old. My friends and I would range two to three miles from home on our bicycles, and nobody thought anything of it. We moved away in 1958. Ten years later, Detroit was thought of as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Musket
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 02:50 AM

A little philosophy courtesy of "The Perishers" when young Marlon was having to listen to his Granddad's tales of his youth;

"The older they get, the further they had to walk to school each day."

When I was at junior school (7 to 11 year olds) I walked about a mile and a half each way, on my own or with friends. Once I got to secondary school at 11, it dropped to quarter of a mile each way. I think Marlon was onto something....

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 03:02 AM

Mr Red: Times are different, in my youth a car was a rare luxury so people lived near their work and rarely moved house or job, and everyone knew everyone. Everyone was watching. Perverts were especially noticeable, not that anyone told me who they were.

It ain't like that nowadays, least ways not in UK towns. Maybe in rural areas a bit.

The "times" is for self and mobility. Freedom has a cost. This is one of them.

Dunno how old you are....I'm nearly 60 but in my youth, in a not-particularly-salubrious place in the north of England, cars were not a "rare luxury". There were fewer of them than there are now, but there were still a fair number about! As a 7 year old, I knew that "Harry F" and "Mucky Willie" locally were men to avoid, but who knows who else was abusing kids then? Those two were known and guarded against but since then I've heard of a couple of cases where kids I knew were being abused by relatives or friends of their parents.

The fact is that incidences of actual child abduction per capita have stayed quite stable in the UK for the last 50 years at least. No-one can say what the incidence of non-abductive abuse was back then, but with all the stuff coming to light now, it's safe to say "a lot higher than people thought". This golden age where everyone was wonderful to each other is a myth.

What we have now is paranoia, fear and "helicopter parenting" far in excess of what the actual statistics support. We used to get comments from other parents for allowing our kids to walk alone to and from school at 9/10, but ours have grown up a lot more independent, self-reliant and adaptable than a lot of their peers whoo seem, in their mid-20s, to be unable to cut the apron strings!

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 05:27 AM

Mrs/Ms Gainey, get yourself a good lawyer, go to court and rip the shit out of them as - "there is no law that specifies how old a child has to be before he or she can go somewhere unsupervised." - and the burden of proof that you were negligent rests with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 10:15 AM

I must admit that while we ranged around, mostly we went across the street and played with the kids there, or played with the kids on our side of the street, or the ones across the alley, or played with each other (yes, I know how all that sounds!). There were plenty of holes to dig and dirt clods to throw and a dump to play near home.

Also, we were aware of people who tried to lure kids away with candy and things and we were to tell our parents if that happened...like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 12:39 PM

Not like things were in the '50s? In the 50s my mother used to warn me that "it isn't like it used to be." And she was right, of course.

I think it is far more important to teach a child to use his or her head, i.e. stay out of dark alleys, don't go off alone with a stranger, stop and think, don't climb a rock wall that has water at its foot, know when it's time to go home, stay away from the big kids... things like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Bettynh
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 01:53 PM

A rule we finally came to was this: NEVER FRIGHTEN AN ADULT if you can avoid it. Cops are the most dangerous - they carry guns. The news is often full of cops or others who killed because they were afraid for their lives. But it's human nature for an adult to yell at a kid (or worse) because that adult is frightened FOR the kid, whether the danger is real or not and no matter who is at fault. This came after a car nearly hit one of my kids and the driver stopped to scream obscenities at them. His mistake was speeding. Their mistake was frightening him by cutting it too close, even though they were right and made the crossing. They were about 10 at that time, and I think it helped them to be a bit more careful in their behavior.

At the age of 6, my kids were required to attend school. The bus carried kids from 2 miles or more away. The school is a half mile away. They walked every day. For the first year or so, they walked with a cousin who was a few years older, but they were allowed to walk without her when they reported that she crossed a busy street several times to join groups of friends walking in the same direction.

As for the incident in question: Mom knew where the kid was going. He had rules (carry the phone, call if troubled, answer check-ins from Mom). When approached by a stranger at the public pool, he was initially polite but spooked and ran to the park, which he considered safe. He didn't call Mom in fear. He was playing at the park, so no longer felt threatened. The cop in question felt fear for him. He brought the kid home. As far as I can see, that was the very last rational action. Arresting the Mom and charging her were expressions of either the fear or prejudice of the cop. He needs correction.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 01:56 PM

it is interesting how people look back at and think it was much safer etc. My dad's earliest memory as a kid growing up in Czechoslovakia in the 1930's was being kidnapped at the age of 3, as his mom left him and his baby sister in a pram outside a shop. (Which was a common thing to do as you couldn't really go into the shops with prams anyway, sort of like you see in the Call the Midwife). He remembered that a well dressed man took him by the hand and walked him, and later carried him draped over his arm as he cried and tried to hold onto railings.
Eventually he made it to the trainstation where he was met by a woman in a flower dress but because he kept crying and screaming - they left him there on the platform between the trains. (First the woman got on the train and the man got on just before the train left).

SOme people then took him to what looked like the cafeteria, where one of his aunts found him later in the day (when his mother saw he was missing she alerted the whole family who searched for him all over town.) A prime memory after the incident was being tied to the pram with a rope.

When I was started going to school in the 60s my mom walked me the first day, but after that I went on my own, across town and through traffic. My friend who grew up in the Ottawa valley recalls in the 50s recalls his parents sending his brother to school with the family dog because the dog "knew" traffic.

And yet, our kids who are 9 and 7, do not walk to school on their own but rather we drop them off and pick up at pre-after school care, though we have started to encourage them to go to the playground (a block away) on their own.

Somehow we think there are more dangers than their used to be but in his book The Better Angels of our Nature - Stephen Pinker argues convincingly that there has been a decline in violence (borne out by stats). In the US, a population of 300 million there are approximately 200 children kidnapped annually (mostly by parents) and while a small number < 50 do meet with foul play - we don't consider the far higher danger of all the parents in their cars running over kids as they pick up and drop off their own.

In the end, kids do need to learn to be independent and while safety is important, the trend has been to be over-protective, even dodge ball has been banned because it is considered too violent.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: meself
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 02:29 PM

"pre-after school care"? Um ... wouldn't that be "school"?

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Bettynh
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 02:56 PM

petr, what do your kids say about walking to school? Drive time can be a valuable time for kids and parents to be together. It might be hard to give that up, both by kids and by parents. I probably would have driven them in bad weather, but I was working nights at the time and they had to be in school before I got home.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 05:15 PM

My two sisters and I were definitely free-range kids. They went to school by themselves, but there was always a bunch of kids heading the same way. I had a home teacher provided by the school district because I'd had polio at the age of two. I didn't go to public school until I was in high school and felt secure enough with a leg brace and pair of forearm crutches.

But before then, I used to propel my little red wagon south one block and east two blocks to a drugstore where there was a newsstand that had a rack of comic books, and I'd sit there and read for a couple of hours (tolerated by the store owner). Never had a problem.   

That was in Pasadena, California. When I was about ten, we moved to Seattle.

Dad used to drive me to Roosevelt High School on his way to work, but I made my own way home. Again, everything okay. From our house, there was a small business district about six blocks away, a public library three blocks away, and the East Green Lake swimming beach and field house one block beyond the library.

Saturday afternoons, one of my sisters and I walked several blocks to a movie theater. Double feature, newsreel, cartoon, and thirteen or fifteen chapter serial ("The Mysterious Doctor Satan," "Batman," "Don Winslow of the Navy," great stuff!). Then we'd walk home again.

Maybe things were safer then in ancient times. We were never bothered by anyone and weren't afraid of much of nuthin'.

One time I was swimming in a public swimming pool (I was maybe twelve) and an older man got friendly. At one point he tried to slip his hand inside my swim trunks. I knew there was something not right about this, so I just told him (kind of loudly) to leave me alone or I'd call the lifeguard. He beat a hasty retreat and left the pool.

I told my parents about it. And that's when I got "the birds and the bees" talk. And the warning that there were occasional strange people about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Bettynh
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 06:19 PM

I worry, too, about the effects of paranoia in our society at large. Because I automatically had two kids, taking a troupe of 4 or 5 kids was no hassle. I grew up within commuting distance of Boston, so travelling there was no big deal. Museum memberships at the time included parking, so we had memberships to Boston's Science Museum and Children's Museum (and the Fine Arts for awhile, as well). For many adults in this town (about 35 miles from Boston) planning a trip to Boston equates to travelling to the moon - it would never happen for their kids. I never thought about permission slips. In the museums, I pretty much let the kids wander. We visited often enough that my kids knew them pretty well, and they usually had a great time visiting their favorite areas with friends. As far as I know, no guard ever questioned them about my presence (or, rather, lack of presence). If there's a threat of arrest for a parent in a similar situation now, that's more than sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 07:00 PM

Americans have a clinical need to be paranoid about something all the time: terrorists, Muslims, child molesters, non-existant violent crime, government tyranny & on & on. If they're not scared witless and worrying about something they're just not happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 07:20 PM

SOME Americans, Greg. I think the same can be said about most nationalities. There are always some people....

"All Indians walk in single file. At least, the one I saw did...."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 09:52 PM

BTW, Bettynh, I neglected to tell you that I love the title: free range kids. It evokes a smile from me and a memory of busy, happy children. Thank you!

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Janie
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 11:02 PM

No question but what our own childhood experiences, social learning, etc. make a difference in how we parents (or society or community) view acceptable risk. Also no question that being able to read about every crime against kids or every other danger lurking anywhere in the country or the world (thanks, globalization and the internet!) also colors our perceptions.

Enjoying this discussion, and learning from it.

Thanks all of you, and especially Bettyh for starting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Bettynh
Date: 01 Aug 14 - 10:51 AM

Ebbie, it's a great phrase, isn't it? But it's not mine. Laura Skenazy wrote the book, curates the blog, and leads a movement of sorts. Her journey started when she allowed her 9 year old son to travel through Manhatten alone (story here)..

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Aug 14 - 11:10 AM

SOME Americans, Greg. I think the same can be said about most nationalities.

Agreed, Don, point taken. It just seems of late that the numbers in the U.S. have been growing exponentially.

Now about that Indian.......

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 10:13 AM

When my nephew was 10 years old, he came for a visit to my busy urban neighborhood. We were on a walk, and he had a toy car with him. I was trying to point out to him that a certain intersection had offset streets, and you had to check over your shoulder for turning cars before crossing. I was trying to get him to look up and study the street, see the cars.

Over and over he muttered, "Yeah, yeah," while never looking up from his toy car. He was running it along the retaining walls, and the clicking it made seemed to have him hypnotized. At age ten, he didn't grasp that personal safety ought to be more important than a toy.

Right then I decided that during his stay, this boy was not getting out of sight of an adult.
============
Know your kid. Know your neighborhood. Use your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 02:11 PM

Use your head.

Now THERE'S the problem !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 03:14 PM

Not sure I really believe it, in that at the age of 8 or 9 I was all over the place on my bike with friends - all over Stanmore common - but here for comparison purposes -

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/know-raped-come-forward/story-22045592-detail/story.html

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 08:55 PM

meself - I call it pre-after school care because we drop the kids off there before school begins and pick them up after school ends. They are then taken to school in supervised groups.

School hours are 9am to 3pm. So I drop them off, around 8-830 and my wife picks them up around 5;30. (At after school care they have various activities, crafts, games or playing in the playground, during the school year - the after school care is available during holidays as well as the summer break - for a fee of course) I should also add that breakfast is included though we have our breakfast at home during which time we read to them.

The alternative would be for them to walk home and be alone until we get home.

As far as I know the law in Canada (where we live) there is no specific age as to what age is ok to leave kids alone. It really depends on the maturity of the child and parents must ensure that kids are not in danger (if it can be determined by police that children should not have been left alone - then they could be charged with child abandonment - this from Safe Kids org

Obviously the key is what is reasonable, and understanding the maturity of your kids and what they can do.

Still, I recall my brother and I were latchkey kids and were alone unsupervised. I also cringe at some of the stupid things we did as kids, ie. playing with fire, throwing knives up in the air. (among other things) that we never told our parents about.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I just watched a film on netflix (Maidentrip) about Laura Drekker a 16 year old Dutch girl who sailed solo around the world - part of the story involved a fight with Dutch authorities trying to prevent it (by taking custody from the father).

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Thompson
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 04:37 AM

This is why children are growing into limited, frightened adults. The whole point of childhood is to do dangerous things and lie about them.
Even short-sightedness (or as Americans call it, near-sightedness) is increasing exponentially because children aren't outdoors enough for the daylight to spark the hormonal change that prevents eye damage in those with a genetic tendency to it. (The Australian researcher Dr Kathryn Rose did the study that discovered this first.) Not to mention obesity…
If they were in Gaza I could see the point of stopping kids going alone to playgrounds or beaches…

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 07:04 AM

"The whole point of childhood is to do dangerous things and lie about them."

There's a kernel of truth in this, for sure. And I'm thinking that maybe because kids don't have opportunities to learn what the universe wants them to learn when they're little, they're trying in college.... with disastrous results.

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Bettynh
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 12:14 PM

"The whole point of childhood is to do dangerous things and lie about them"

LOL! I'd say the point to parenting is guiding the kids through danger.

A story:

The Muiseum of Science haad a dinosaur exhibit with moving life-size models At the entrance there was a stripped version of a model to show the workings. They were displayed in a room with spooky lighting, fake fog, and animal noises. As we started into the spooky room, Harlan stopped and said, "I know they're machines but I sorta think they're going to eat me." His brother had no such fears and wanted to get up close. I ended up staying outside with Harlan while Brave Brother Virgil sallyed forth into the jungle alone. They were 4 or 5 years old. There are things to be said about this incident, mostly about being a twin and having twin children. In retrospect, I'm happiest to think that Harlan could voice his fears and that I was able to hear him.

Subject: RE: BS: Free range kids?
From: Mysha
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 05:57 PM

(I don't know: What do range kids go for, normally?)

Had Laura Dekker (note spelling) been a 16-year-old to begin with, it probably would have caused less problems - e.g., she would then have been beyond compulsory education - but the whole affair started when she was 13. Still, most of it was about the number of children the average person sees around himself that he is certain are able to sail around the world unsupervised. As that number is usually zero, quite a few people went into impossible-mode.


Well, as a six-year old I went to school supervised, by my three year older brother. I never saw it like that, though: We were merely going to the same school. About 800m / half a mile, I guess. I think our mother got angry with us for getting distracted and being late only once.
This is also my only problem with that story: I don't see anything wrong with a kid with purpose walking to the park. (If you can't even be safe in the park, then the city has bigger problems than unsupervised kids, IMO.) I wonder how he got distracted and got into conversation with people in a pool, though. Maybe what they saw in the situation was a kid roaming around without any purpose and without any visible supervision.
                                                                Mysha